Winter is Coming: House Stark Quest

@Charcolt How many of the wildings besides the Thenns are willing to bend the knee and follow the laws of Westeros and how many would rather die than let their culture fade away like that?
 
Great to see you back, charcolt.

The Gift or New Gift may be the best place to put them. Maybe have them work with us to restore Queenscrown?

Terms will have to include ways to address grievances. Not just putting old grudges (caused by both sides) to bed, but an understanding on how those that break the peace will be dealt with. Can't let the more belligerent or revenge happy lords get away with breaking the peace, but we need to address it without alienating or raising the ire of all the free folk and or lords.
 
There's no way we can police so many wildlings, and there's bound to be thousands who'd rather strike out and pillage the rich southron lands rather than stick around and fight supernatural gribblies.
Let's give the wildlings a wide range of tempting options so that they can be willingly divided up into manageable chunks. Some to the wolfwoods, some to Skagos, some to the Gifts, some to cross the Narrow Sea to the endless tracts of Essos, etc. The more wildlings we can shuffle off for others to deal with, the better.
 
Last edited:
Thenns to the Old Gift or Sea Dragon Point
NightsWatch for the ones who want to fight
Northern Houses and Mountain Clans get the New Gift.
Essos
Iron Islands
Stoney Shore
The Lonely Hills
Cape Kraken
Sea Dragon Point
Troublesome ones get the sword.

That's a bit of everything.
 
Thenns to the Old Gift or Sea Dragon Point
NightsWatch for the ones who want to fight
Northern Houses and Mountain Clans get the New Gift.
Essos
Iron Islands
Stoney Shore
The Lonely Hills
Cape Kraken
Sea Dragon Point
Troublesome ones get the sword.

That's a bit of everything.


It's not just offering different places. We can offer options based on clans/groups that want to stay as such, and options for those that don't really care (or maybe even want to start something completely new).

And we need to keep in mind history, old and recent. For example, the Umbers have a more recent grudge with Mors's daughter being carried off, so that's going to make their dislike a bit more fresh.

Hmm...I wonder if she's still alive.


First part of the offer will be organizing their fighters. I think they're expecting to contribute so recruitment shouldn't be an issue, but how will their forces be integrated? Joining the Night's Watch would be problematic, but some might. For the rest the chief's, clan leaders, etc. will lead their men just as a landed knight or lord does, the Ginger leads them as a higher lord/lady would, but Ned is in overall command, of course.

Thenn's: settle the New Gift, Brandon's Gift or near the Mountain Clans/Wolfswood.

Ice-River Clans: they're cannibals...send them to Skagos? Or the Dreadfort. :V They've warred with the Men of the Frozen Shore. Not sure if that means we should keep them apart or relatively close so that they continue disliking each other rather than their new neighbors.

Men of the Frozen Shore: they've probably had run-ins with Mormonts, Glovers, and the Mountain Clans. Sea Dragon point might be a bit close for them...but there is a bit of separation. It's possible. But the right matches might help smooth things over. It was canon for Bobby B quest that Tormund Giantsbane and Maege Mormont were an item, after all. So perhaps they can be settled at Sea Dragon Point and/or the Stony Shore. If not, the Bay of Seals might be an option. It's closer to Karhold than Umber lands. Maybe the Karstarks wouldn't mind so much. Especially if there's now somebody between them and the Skagosi.


Hornfoots: lived near the Frostfangs, hate the Nightrunners. I don't know. Stony Shore or Cape Kraken might work.

Nightrunners: not much about them, just that they don't like the Hornfoots, so they probably lived around the Frostfangs too. Pretty much the same as the Hornfoots. I'm just not sure if we want to try to keep them away from each other because of their dislike, or near each other for the same reason.

Cave Dwellers: lived in caves in the northern Frostfangs around the Thenn. If they got on well enough they could stick near the Thenns?

Giants: Wolfswood, settling with the Mountain Clans. New Gift or Brandon's Gift.

Children of the Forest?: Wolfswood. Though apparently there are weirwood circles in the higher hills of Sea Dragon Point. If so they'd like that.


Those that have no particular attachment to their old groups could resettle near Winterfell.

Of course, some individuals and groups might identify more strongly with Ygritte. While getting the Free Folk settled in various places is a good idea, I think Ygritte has shown herself as a reasonable leader among them, one that we would prefer remain fairly prominent and strong. We could offer her Queenscrown itself and the Thenns would probably get along decently with the Mountain Clans since there's some cultural similarity and the Thenns mostly keep to themselves so there wouldn't be as much bad blood from raiding.

The Umbers won't like any Wildlings near them...but better that it be those that are somewhat civilized (like the Thenns) and/or those that are loyal to Ygritte and therefore won't be the ones to start trouble (and she'll have the clout and support to put down the occasional fuckhead that does something stupid).


Some might be interested in going South to the Riverlands, or to help rebuild King's Landing as Enjou suggested. Though I'm not sure if any particular groups would lean that way.

Wun Wun for Kingsguard again?


Edit: but some of those settlement options are longer term. We may need something better for the shorter term while we're sorting all this out.
 
Last edited:
Children of the Forest?: Wolfswood. Though apparently there are weirwood circles in the higher hills of Sea Dragon Point. If so they'd like that.

Maybe the Gods Eye for the Children. Tons of heart trees, the Green Men would surely welcome them, and it'd probably be the safest place for them in the long run.
 
I edited in a bit at the end that since some resettlement plans might be longer term, we'll probably need something for the short term.

After all, some of it will hinge on talking to the lords that will have Free Folk as their new neighbors or subjects. For example, Karstark might be willing (more likely than the Umbers, anyway) to have some settle near the Bay of Seals, but just dropping them in his lap is probably a bad idea.

So, we'll probably need more immediate settlement plans along with suggesting ideas for longer term plans.


Edit: we'll also need to lay down some ground rules/leave room for negotiation about what laws apply where, who swears fealty to who, etc.


Free Folk that permanently settle on a lord's land are of course expected to swear fealty to that lord.

Those that settle and (re)build on sparsely populated land like Sea Dragon Point, Bay of Seals or the Stony Shore that isn't currently claimed can run things as they like. Like the Mountain Clans they can have their own laws within their lands (within certain limits, no raiding/kidnapping/etc. at least not your neighbors). Their needs to be some kind of appointed head that is responsible for keeping order/punishing those that break the peace or threaten their neighbors. It would be preferable if the leaders of these Free Folk settlements kneel to the Stark in Winterfell and are basically lords in all but name, but perhaps that could be negotiated down to paying tribute? Or treat them as something like tiny cities with their own charters.


Ygritte's territory (whether it's Queenscrown, Sea Dragon point, or elsewhere)...I have a feeling the Free Folk loyal to her don't want to kneel to anyone else, but aren't hyper-violent assholes, either. If they can keep most of their culture She may be willing to kneel to Ned Stark, but if she gets Queenscrown for her base of support then perhaps she could manage Queenscrown and Brandon's Gift to support the Watch.


Don't want anyone telling you what to do?
1. Settle down somewhere abandoned, live and let live. Keep the peace for the winter. But get back north of the Wall when spring comes around or get dealt with.
2. If you can't stop being a belligerent jackass for that long...one way trip to Essos, Iron Islands, etc.
3. Death.


In any case, winter may set in before these settlements can really get going. As some Northmen move to Winterfell during the winters, the Free Folk may need to do something similar, with not just Winterfell but other lands.

Arrangements would have to be agreed upon. Understandings had. That the Free Folk can take refuge in certain places until their settlements are ready or winter passes, and they will not be forced to stay under any circumstance or beholden to their hosts. But while they are 'guests' they are of course expected to contribute leading up to winter and during it, and will obey the laws of the land so long as they're there.
 
Last edited:
I edited in a bit at the end that since some resettlement plans might be longer term, we'll probably need something for the short term.

After all, some of it will hinge on talking to the lords that will have Free Folk as their new neighbors or subjects. For example, Karstark might be willing (more likely than the Umbers, anyway) to have some settle near the Bay of Seals, but just dropping them in his lap is probably a bad idea.

So, we'll probably need more immediate settlement plans along with suggesting ideas for longer term plans.


Edit: we'll also need to lay down some ground rules/leave room for negotiation about what laws apply where, who swears fealty to who, etc.


Free Folk that permanently settle on a lord's land are of course expected to swear fealty to that lord.

Those that settle and (re)build on sparsely populated land like Sea Dragon Point, Bay of Seals or the Stony Shore that isn't currently claimed can run things as they like. Like the Mountain Clans they can have their own laws within their lands (within certain limits, no raiding/kidnapping/etc. at least not your neighbors). Their needs to be some kind of appointed head that is responsible for keeping order/punishing those that break the peace or threaten their neighbors. It would be preferable if the leaders of these Free Folk settlements kneel to the Stark in Winterfell and are basically lords in all but name, but perhaps that could be negotiated down to paying tribute? Or treat them as something like tiny cities with their own charters.


Ygritte's territory (whether it's Queenscrown, Sea Dragon point, or elsewhere)...I have a feeling the Free Folk loyal to her don't want to kneel to anyone else, but aren't hyper-violent assholes, either. If they can keep most of their culture She may be willing to kneel to Ned Stark, but if she gets Queenscrown for her base of support then perhaps she could manage Queenscrown and Brandon's Gift to support the Watch.


Don't want anyone telling you what to do?
1. Settle down somewhere abandoned, live and let live. Keep the peace for the winter. But get back north of the Wall when spring comes around or get dealt with.
2. If you can't stop being a belligerent jackass for that long...one way trip to Essos, Iron Islands, etc.
3. Death.


In any case, winter may set in before these settlements can really get going. As some Northmen move to Winterfell during the winters, the Free Folk may need to do something similar, with not just Winterfell but other lands.

Arrangements would have to be agreed upon. Understandings had. That the Free Folk can take refuge in certain places until their settlements are ready or winter passes, and they will not be forced to stay under any circumstance or beholden to their hosts. But while they are 'guests' they are of course expected to contribute leading up to winter and during it, and will obey the laws of the land so long as they're there.
I object to letting them keep any of their laws or giving them large fiefs to actually rule. When I talked about lands I meant settling them there not actually letting them rule and have any actual power.
 
I object to letting them keep any of their laws or giving them large fiefs to actually rule. When I talked about lands I meant settling them there not actually letting them rule and have any actual power.

I think keeping them completely separate or suppressed is a good way to get them to act out eventually. It's not going to make any headway to integrating them or fostering loyalty.

I'm trying to plan for both short term and long term.

If any of them are going to be south of the Wall long term (and the longer this coming winter is, the more settled they'll get) then we want to structure a deal that gets them invested in the local power structure.


Forcing them to accept a completely different way of living all at once would be harder. Especially if you're also trying to keep them under thumb at the same time. Some of them 'acting out' would be more likely. We could deal with those that do, but it would still cause problems that are best avoided if possible.

It's better to get them invested in life in the North, to value it. If they value their new lives in the North and what they have, they'll start valuing their neighbors to keep things secure. To do that we have to give them a place and ways to lay down roots. Part of making them feel secure is letting them feel secure in their identity.

It's not like the North doesn't have the land and empty castles to spare, anyway. So we can gain a lot by offering something that wasn't being used, anyway.


What I'm suggesting as a default option is similar to the Mountain Clans (note that the Starks haven't forced them to live as other Northerners), which isn't all that different from regular lords when all is said and done. Lords basically run things in their holdings the way they want to. So long as they supply troops when called, pay taxes, and obey certain laws they can run their territory as they please. The Mountain Clans (and Free Folk would be) are simply different in some of their customs and culture in dealing with each other/their own people in their territory. Their chiefs may not consider themselves highborn as outsiders would, and social mobility may be a bit more fluid among them as a consequence, but the chief is treated as the effective lord by their liege (in this case, Ned). So on the level of interacting with other 'lords' or their liege, the chiefs aren't that different from kneeler lords.

So...so long as the chiefs of settlements keep order like they're supposed to, what's to object to? It's effectively having some more settlements like the Mountain Clans, just with some different languages and customs that they will keep to themselves. I already established that raiding and kidnapping wouldn't fly, since that violates the peace.

Over time some of the settlements may adopt the cultures of their neighbors, but so long as their ways are respected (assuming they're also respecting their neighbors as well) that will inspire loyalty. Just as the Mountain Clans are loyal to 'the Ned'. This is the long term part of things.


The alternatives I mentioned were if there are any larger settlements like towns that spring up, if any do. Medieval cities often had their own governments and laws. But while having their own laws within the town and structure of who governs (a chief, elders, council, whatever)...there would still be that agreement of loyalty between the settlement and the liege lord.

I'm guessing that Ygritte will have a lot of followers that want to stick with her. Maybe a town will form around her. If it's Queenscrown...its location in the New Gift (and proximity to Brandon's Gift) offers the other possibility I mentioned for that particular location. The Gifts were intended to support the Watch, so some kind of arrangement could be made that works for that purpose. The Free Folk that settle there choose their laws via their selection of Ygritte as their direct leader (she's the effective 'lord' here), but it's not a true lordship since it's technically managing land on the Watch's behalf.

Although, once the mole people are dealt with I wonder if the Watch will have all that much of a purpose. Unless some of the Free Folk do go back beyond the Wall once spring comes around. Then they would have the purpose of putting down any of them that decide to take up raiding again.
 
Last edited:
I think keeping them completely separate or suppressed is a good way to get them to act out eventually. It's not going to make any headway to integrating them or fostering loyalty.

I'm trying to plan for both short term and long term.

If any of them are going to be south of the Wall long term (and the longer this coming winter is, the more settled they'll get) then we want to structure a deal that gets them invested in the local power structure.


Forcing them to accept a completely different way of living all at once would be harder. Especially if you're also trying to keep them under thumb at the same time. Some of them 'acting out' would be more likely. We could deal with those that do, but it would still cause problems that are best avoided if possible.

It's better to get them invested in life in the North, to value it. If they value their new lives in the North and what they have, they'll start valuing their neighbors to keep things secure. To do that we have to give them a place and ways to lay down roots. Part of making them feel secure is letting them feel secure in their identity.

It's not like the North doesn't have the land and empty castles to spare, anyway. So we can gain a lot by offering something that wasn't being used, anyway.


What I'm suggesting as a default option is similar to the Mountain Clans (note that the Starks haven't forced them to live as other Northerners), which isn't all that different from regular lords when all is said and done. Lords basically run things in their holdings the way they want to. So long as they supply troops when called, pay taxes, and obey certain laws they can run their territory as they please. The Mountain Clans (and Free Folk would be) are simply different in some of their customs and culture in dealing with each other/their own people in their territory. Their chiefs may not consider themselves highborn as outsiders would, and social mobility may be a bit more fluid among them as a consequence, but the chief is treated as the effective lord by their liege (in this case, Ned). So on the level of interacting with other 'lords' or their liege, the chiefs aren't that different from kneeler lords.

So...so long as the chiefs of settlements keep order like they're supposed to, what's to object to? It's effectively having some more settlements like the Mountain Clans, just with some different languages and customs that they will keep to themselves. I already established that raiding and kidnapping wouldn't fly, since that violates the peace.

Over time some of the settlements may adopt the cultures of their neighbors, but so long as their ways are respected (assuming they're also respecting their neighbors as well) that will inspire loyalty. Just as the Mountain Clans are loyal to 'the Ned'. This is the long term part of things.


The alternatives I mentioned were if there are any larger settlements like towns that spring up, if any do. Medieval cities often had their own governments and laws. But while having their own laws within the town and structure of who governs (a chief, elders, council, whatever)...there would still be that agreement of loyalty between the settlement and the liege lord.

I'm guessing that Ygritte will have a lot of followers that want to stick with her. Maybe a town will form around her. If it's Queenscrown...its location in the New Gift (and proximity to Brandon's Gift) offers the other possibility I mentioned for that particular location. The Gifts were intended to support the Watch, so some kind of arrangement could be made that works for that purpose. The Free Folk that settle there choose their laws via their selection of Ygritte as their direct leader (she's the effective 'lord' here), but it's not a true lordship since it's technically managing land on the Watch's behalf.

Although, once the mole people are dealt with I wonder if the Watch will have all that much of a purpose. Unless some of the Free Folk do go back beyond the Wall once spring comes around. Then they would have the purpose of putting down any of them that decide to take up raiding again.
A 100k group of people in a place as large as the North, where millions of people inhabit do not need their own structures and laws, assimilation at maximum would wipe that out in a couple of generations. First off, I see any wildlings who refuse to kneel as stating that they do not respect Ned's authority and will not follow the laws of Westeros which means they will not be allowed to settle beyond the Wall. If they refuse to follow the laws than how can we explain letting a large group of criminals into our lands to the rest of our lords and our family as well. We'll be letting them keep their gods so that's a part of their identity they can feel secure in.

The Mountain clans do not have a different culture, they just follow older traditions due to their harsh living conditions. The Mountain Clans are considered nobility and have married into House Stark numerous times (Ned Stark's maternal grandmother was a Flint), the wildlings are in no way comparable once you take more than a cursory glance. The lands they live in necessitate their different way of living just like the crannogmen and the willings themselves, not a surprise the first group of people beyond the Wall to find habitable land quickly transitioned into a Bronze Age society (Thenns). I expect to scatter them enough that forming towns or large settlements to be impossible, especially so in the North where any lands like that are currently being ruled and worked on. I mean GRRM even said the North undergoes a mass famine during each winter so I doubt most of these wildlings even being capable of surviving in such unknown lands surrounded by people and rulers who dislike them.

All I'm saying is that 100k group of people (woman and children included) can be scattered enough that they can not do a thing about the suppression of their culture, even in canon where the North is devastated has the wildlings quickly acclimating to their surroundings so why go the extra mile of making them nobility and giving them power? All it does is piss off all of our lords especially our most loyal ones for no good reason. Also what culture? Besides raiding and wife-stealing what exactly do the wildlings have that they don't share with the rest of the North? I expect a good chunk of them to say no and the ones who accept will have grandchildren and great-grandchildren who'll forget they descended from wildlings.
 
A 100k group of people in a place as large as the North, where millions of people inhabit do not need their own structures and laws, assimilation at maximum would wipe that out in a couple of generations. First off, I see any wildlings who refuse to kneel as stating that they do not respect Ned's authority and will not follow the laws of Westeros which means they will not be allowed to settle beyond the Wall. If they refuse to follow the laws than how can we explain letting a large group of criminals into our lands to the rest of our lords and our family as well. We'll be letting them keep their gods so that's a part of their identity they can feel secure in.

The Mountain clans do not have a different culture, they just follow older traditions due to their harsh living conditions. The Mountain Clans are considered nobility and have married into House Stark numerous times (Ned Stark's maternal grandmother was a Flint), the wildlings are in no way comparable once you take more than a cursory glance. The lands they live in necessitate their different way of living just like the crannogmen and the willings themselves, not a surprise the first group of people beyond the Wall to find habitable land quickly transitioned into a Bronze Age society (Thenns). I expect to scatter them enough that forming towns or large settlements to be impossible, especially so in the North where any lands like that are currently being ruled and worked on. I mean GRRM even said the North undergoes a mass famine during each winter so I doubt most of these wildlings even being capable of surviving in such unknown lands surrounded by people and rulers who dislike them.

All I'm saying is that 100k group of people (woman and children included) can be scattered enough that they can not do a thing about the suppression of their culture, even in canon where the North is devastated has the wildlings quickly acclimating to their surroundings so why go the extra mile of making them nobility and giving them power? All it does is piss off all of our lords especially our most loyal ones for no good reason. Also what culture? Besides raiding and wife-stealing what exactly do the wildlings have that they don't share with the rest of the North? I expect a good chunk of them to say no and the ones who accept will have grandchildren and great-grandchildren who'll forget they descended from wildlings.

You weren't talking about distributing them evenly throughout the North before. At least that's not how I saw it from your list. You mentioned sticking them on the Stony Shore, Sea Dragon Point, Cape Kraken...all sparsely populated areas of the North.

I'm discounting the Iron Islands and Essos from your list. I don't think we should assume we can just dump people there by the boatloads. Discounting the Lonely Hills as well because those are Umber lands.


You're going to try to split up all the Free Folk, even splitting up the clans/tribes/etc. until they don't exist? Good luck splitting up the Thenns, they consider their Magnar a god.

And they all chose Ygritte as their Queen. I bet a good amount could be encouraged to settle elsewhere and separately from any group larger than an extended family, but some won't be interested.

Some of the groups have different gods and different languages. You can bet there's a variety of customs among the different clans and groups of Free Folk. But you're right that they do have a good deal in common with northmen as well. It will make integration easier for a good amount of them.

There is that other thing that a lot of Free Folk have in common about not being a big fan of kneeling. Oh, they cooperated well enough in canon once they were crushed, but they were especially desperate at that point.

Right now they do desperately want to get past the wall and survive. Ygritte's trying for peace, probably in part because war would be too costly with the mole people still to deal with (though I do think she was sincere about wanting to make a better story for her people). But back them into a corner too much or act like we have them over a barrel and they may just opt to attack instead. We'd probably win, but I'd rather avoid a fight that could cost us. Especially when there are other things to worry about.


I agree there's no way we can accept anything less than the Free Folk recognizing Ned's authority so long as they're here. Stark of Winterfell=the big boss in the North. That's required. If I said anything less than that before I was thinking of getting effective fealty but possibly wording it in a way that might be more agreeable to them (though basically the same in actual effect).

But never mind. Their leaders have to kneel, recognizing Ned's law in the North.

What I'm saying is for those that settle somewhere that doesn't have a lord already, they simply get to pick their own direct leaders as they always have, with the expected caveat that their selected leaders will prevent lawless shenanigans. They're picking their chiefs, which isn't much of a concession for us, anyway. The other lords and Ned will recognize these chiefs as their lords.

So doing, they're buying into the North's system of leadership while they still 'have their choice' of leaders (at the direct level). Those leaders will still owe allegiance to the Starks, but it's important that they at least think they're choosing who rules them.


But that's only for those Free Folk that form a large enough settlement where the population may be predominantly Free Folk and in territory that doesn't have a lord already. Honestly....I think the only places that would apply would be Sea Dragon Point, Stony Shore, or Cape Kraken if we encourage a bunch of Free Folk to settle there since there seems to be room. All three of those were areas that you yourself suggested.


As has been said, Free Folk could also be encouraged to settle in already settled and developed lands. Either in the North or further South. Which certainly has advantages for them with winter coming. They'd have to kneel and obey the local lord that's already there, of course. But I said that already. No local lords get undermined or displaced.


The town idea...probably wouldn't actually be needed unless at least several thousand settle together in close proximity (probably more like at least ten thousand). Not too likely but I like to have as many possible occurrences covered as possible.


We can probably get a good amount of Free Folk to peel off from the 100k 'army' and scatter around. But we're not going to be able to break up all the individual groups/clans/etc. within them. I'm not sure we should try to do that for all of them, anyway...since their 'Queen' (to be recognized as 'Lady Ygritte' as a vassal of Ned Stark) may be the best person to keep a good amount of them in line.

If her supporters end up as a sizeable population in their own right, then making her a lady, and getting them in the system of fealty that way is less likely to ruffle feathers than trying to split them up or trying to get rid of her. This could be done by setting her and her supporters up at Sea Dragon Point or the Stony Shore, or go with the Queenscrown idea that I mentioned.


As for the Mountain Clans, they're considered nobility by people outside their clans. They don't consider themselves as such. That's a cultural distinction. It's a distinction in governance (or at least the perception of it) that the Free Folk who settled in lands that did not already have a lord would have in common with the Mountain Clans.

...those that don't settle on lands with already established lordships, anyway.


We could always ship them off to Skagos. The Skagosi are half wildlings themselves so they would know how to deal with them.

The thought had crossed my mind, actually. But can Skagos support another 100,000 with this especially harsh winter coming around? I have doubts. They already go cannibal on a regular basis. I don't think most of the Free Folk would go for that, and understandably so. The ice river clans, sure...send them there.

Sea Dragon Point and the Stony Shore are sparsely populated and don't have lords as far as I know (unless the Fishers are still around at the Stony Shore...and Cape Kraken seems to only have the Flints at Flint's finger). Those places or the Gifts would work to put them at.



Bare Bones plan:

*Refuge from winter and Gendel's children means respecting the laws of the North. To guarantee this, their leaders must vow fealty to the Stark of Winterfell. The Free Folk will be expected to contribute to the fight against Gendel's children, the defense of the North in general so long as they are there, and assist with the remaining harvests. All will be necessary if we're going to help each other survive winter.
--*Any Free Folk that settle on lands already ruled by a lord must swear fealty (either directly or by their leader) and must obey their laws.
--*Ygritte will be offered the title of Lady Ygritte ____. She will be offered the (Stony Shore, Sea Dragon Point, Cape Kraken, Queenscrown) for her people to settle. She will swear fealty directly to the Stark of Winterfell.
maybe place the Thenns somewhere in particular.
offer idea of ice river clans on Skagos.
We can't make the promise exactly, since allowing Free Folk further south would be Robb's call, but we could pitch the idea of some of them settling in the Riverlands, or to help rebuild King's Landing may be in the cards.
The case could be made for the Children of the Forest to settle the God's Eye. Or the weirwood circles at Sea Dragon Point. Or Wolfswood.
Giants offered the Wolfswood in particular but if they have a preference?
*Free Folk, as any person in Westeros is, are not bound to the land and can leave in peace. If they ever wish to not live under oaths of fealty they are free to go back beyond the Wall, or fuck off to Essos for all we care.
*Those that had been abducted from their homes in the North must be allowed to return.

Edit: there's obviously room for more...maybe encourage some to settle near the Bay of Seals (closer to Karhold than Umber lands). Encouraging certain marriage alliances may help push integration along as well. TormundxMaege?

Added a bit about returning those that had been abducted must be allowed to return to their families.
 
Last edited:
Charcolt said:
"And then what? Shall we live in harmony? This girl and her ilk have killed thousands. My father's grandfather. Do you think the Umbers and Mormonts will keep faith with Winterfell if I unleash the horde upon their homes? The Wildlings spit upon the laws of men."

Ygritte snarled in anger, her freckled face as red as her hair. "It's you lot who've fucked us! Trapped us on the shit side of your wall to die and cut down whoever tries to get us south."

How long had it gone on like this? Northmen and Wildlings. The First Men divided. From the start, you supposed. When Bran built his wall and some poor fools decided to keep to the villages their fathers' fathers had built. Since Joramun Horn-Blower all those thousands of years ago.

When would it end?

The Wildlings wanted land. A land to live in peace and to practice their culture - even if it was a shitty one. Reparations for the injustices they had faced. The Northmen wanted that too - justice for a hundred thousand sisters and mothers stolen from their beds.

When would it end?

We need to keep this part in mind.

Kneeling will be a point of contention for the Free Folk. How much of one it will be will depend on what exactly kneeling means.

The Free Folk would be expected to contribute to the fight against Gendel's children, expected to contribute in armed men (or women) if called upon, and assist with the remaining harvests. All will be necessary if we're going to help each other survive winter.

That's basically paying taxes (contributing/helping with the harvest, contributing some yield) and providing military service and troops as is expected of other lords. That part of kneeling shouldn't be contentious since it's about pooling resources to survive.

Beyond that, what are necessary parts of kneeling for the Free Folk that settle down in previously unoccupied land (those that settle in land ruled by lords will obey the lords, as mentioned).

1. No raiding.
2. No slavery.
3. Respect property of your neighbors or the few Northmen already living in or near their territory.

Any other rules that should be specifically mentioned as part of kneeling? Would those rules also be laws that a lord is assumed to have sworn to uphold (as part of swearing fealty), but the Free Folk might not care for?

I'm not supporting exceptions being made for the Free Folk. We need to make clear the reasons for kneeling and reasons for the obligations/rules with it, and show how the benefits outweigh the supposed costs.


Both sides have been wronged for a long time. There's been killing on both sides. The Free Folk being offered land is reparations for them being confined from the start. Those women that have been taken and are currently alive can be returned, but that doesn't undo all the previous kidnapping.
 
Last edited:
You weren't talking about distributing them evenly throughout the North before. At least that's not how I saw it from your list. You mentioned sticking them on the Stony Shore, Sea Dragon Point, Cape Kraken...all sparsely populated areas of the North.

I'm discounting the Iron Islands and Essos from your list. I don't think we should assume we can just dump people there by the boatloads. Discounting the Lonely Hills as well because those are Umber lands.


You're going to try to split up all the Free Folk, even splitting up the clans/tribes/etc. until they don't exist? Good luck splitting up the Thenns, they consider their Magnar a god.

And they all chose Ygritte as their Queen. I bet a good amount could be encouraged to settle elsewhere and separately from any group larger than an extended family, but some won't be interested.

Some of the groups have different gods and different languages. You can bet there's a variety of customs among the different clans and groups of Free Folk. But you're right that they do have a good deal in common with northmen as well. It will make integration easier for a good amount of them.

There is that other thing that a lot of Free Folk have in common about not being a big fan of kneeling. Oh, they cooperated well enough in canon once they were crushed, but they were especially desperate at that point.

Right now they do desperately want to get past the wall and survive. Ygritte's trying for peace, probably in part because war would be too costly with the mole people still to deal with (though I do think she was sincere about wanting to make a better story for her people). But back them into a corner too much or act like we have them over a barrel and they may just opt to attack instead. We'd probably win, but I'd rather avoid a fight that could cost us. Especially when there are other things to worry about.


I agree there's no way we can accept anything less than the Free Folk recognizing Ned's authority so long as they're here. Stark of Winterfell=the big boss in the North. That's required. If I said anything less than that before I was thinking of getting effective fealty but possibly wording it in a way that might be more agreeable to them (though basically the same in actual effect).

But never mind. Their leaders have to kneel, recognizing Ned's law in the North.

What I'm saying is for those that settle somewhere that doesn't have a lord already, they simply get to pick their own direct leaders as they always have, with the expected caveat that their selected leaders will prevent lawless shenanigans. They're picking their chiefs, which isn't much of a concession for us, anyway. The other lords and Ned will recognize these chiefs as their lords.

So doing, they're buying into the North's system of leadership while they still 'have their choice' of leaders (at the direct level). Those leaders will still owe allegiance to the Starks, but it's important that they at least think they're choosing who rules them.


But that's only for those Free Folk that form a large enough settlement where the population may be predominantly Free Folk and in territory that doesn't have a lord already. Honestly....I think the only places that would apply would be Sea Dragon Point, Stony Shore, or Cape Kraken if we encourage a bunch of Free Folk to settle there since there seems to be room. All three of those were areas that you yourself suggested.


As has been said, Free Folk could also be encouraged to settle in already settled and developed lands. Either in the North or further South. Which certainly has advantages for them with winter coming. They'd have to kneel and obey the local lord that's already there, of course. But I said that already. No local lords get undermined or displaced.


The town idea...probably wouldn't actually be needed unless at least several thousand settle together in close proximity (probably more like at least ten thousand). Not too likely but I like to have as many possible occurrences covered as possible.


We can probably get a good amount of Free Folk to peel off from the 100k 'army' and scatter around. But we're not going to be able to break up all the individual groups/clans/etc. within them. I'm not sure we should try to do that for all of them, anyway...since their 'Queen' (to be recognized as 'Lady Ygritte' as a vassal of Ned Stark) may be the best person to keep a good amount of them in line.

If her supporters end up as a sizeable population in their own right, then making her a lady, and getting them in the system of fealty that way is less likely to ruffle feathers than trying to split them up or trying to get rid of her. This could be done by setting her and her supporters up at Sea Dragon Point or the Stony Shore, or go with the Queenscrown idea that I mentioned.


As for the Mountain Clans, they're considered nobility by people outside their clans. They don't consider themselves as such. That's a cultural distinction. It's a distinction in governance (or at least the perception of it) that the Free Folk who settled in lands that did not already have a lord would have in common with the Mountain Clans.

...those that don't settle on lands with already established lordships, anyway.




The thought had crossed my mind, actually. But can Skagos support another 100,000 with this especially harsh winter coming around? I have doubts. They already go cannibal on a regular basis. I don't think most of the Free Folk would go for that, and understandably so. The ice river clans, sure...send them there.

Sea Dragon Point and the Stony Shore are sparsely populated and don't have lords as far as I know (unless the Fishers are still around at the Stony Shore...and Cape Kraken seems to only have the Flints at Flint's finger). Those places or the Gifts would work to put them at.



Bare Bones plan:

*Refuge from winter and Gendel's children means respecting the laws of the North. To guarantee this, their leaders must vow fealty to the Stark of Winterfell. The Free Folk will be expected to contribute to the fight against Gendel's children, the defense of the North in general so long as they are there, and assist with the remaining harvests. All will be necessary if we're going to help each other survive winter.
--*Any Free Folk that settle on lands already ruled by a lord must swear fealty (either directly or by their leader) and must obey their laws.
--*Ygritte will be offered the title of Lady Ygritte ____. She will be offered the (Stony Shore, Sea Dragon Point, Cape Kraken, Queenscrown) for her people to settle. She will swear fealty directly to the Stark of Winterfell.
maybe place the Thenns somewhere in particular.
offer idea of ice river clans on Skagos.
We can't make the promise exactly, since allowing Free Folk further south would be Robb's call, but we could pitch the idea of some of them settling in the Riverlands, or to help rebuild King's Landing may be in the cards.
The case could be made for the Children of the Forest to settle the God's Eye. Or the weirwood circles at Sea Dragon Point. Or Wolfswood.
Giants offered the Wolfswood in particular but if they have a preference?
*Free Folk, as any person in Westeros is, are not bound to the land and can leave in peace. If they ever wish to not live under oaths of fealty they are free to go back beyond the Wall, or fuck off to Essos for all we care.
*Those that had been abducted from their homes in the North must be allowed to return.

Edit: there's obviously room for more...maybe encourage some to settle near the Bay of Seals (closer to Karhold than Umber lands). Encouraging certain marriage alliances may help push integration along as well. TormundxMaege?

Added a bit about returning those that had been abducted must be allowed to return to their families.
Aren't the Lonely Hills, Bolton lands? My plan was to split them up over all the options I listed not just the North. I understand giving them rights but we need to be careful not to give them rights that incentivize the preservation of their Freefolk identity like being able to leave any lands their sworn to after giving their oaths, that's a nightmare in the North where all hands on deck are needed to survive the mass famine they undergo each Winter and introduces resentment from other smallfolk and nobles. Although that's not even touching the nightmare that is throwing a group of primarily hunter-gathers into farming.
 
Last edited:
Aren't the Lonely Hills, Bolton lands? My plan was to split them up over all the options I listed not just the North. I understand giving them rights but we need to be careful not to give them rights that incentivize the preservation of their Freefolk identity like being able to leave any lands their sworn to after giving their oaths, that's a nightmare in the North where all hands on deck are needed to survive the mass famine they undergo each Winter and introduces resentment from other smallfolk and nobles. Although that's not even touching the nightmare that is throwing a group of primarily hunter-gathers into farming.

Lonely Hills

Umber lands.

Aren't smallfolk in Westeros allowed to go where they please? 'Vote with their feet', so to speak. They're not serfs.

Of course, once settled it would take some serious dissatisfaction to make them want to move.

Are you saying the Free Folk should be bound to the land, making them less free than smallfolk? That's not going to work.

And I already made clear that the terms of them being in the North are that if they're in a lord's land, they operate by their rules.


Oh, there will be issues for them adjusting to farming (though I think they'll quickly get used to being able to grow all this food, holy shit!). That's why I'm suggesting multiple options. Your plan has them spreading everywhere...but it's all the single option of effectively dissolving their clans/tribes/villages and spread out. Some might not be that attached, others will be. To make a solution that's more likely to keep as many as possible from acting out...we need to get as many of them comfortably settled as possible, which is going to require multiple options.

But Sea Dragon Point and the Stony Shore should be plenty of land for them, with room to move about if they want without having to wander onto their neighbors land and be subject to the lords there.


The part of my plan that has giving them a solid chunk of land (Stony Shore, Sea Dragon Point, Cape Kraken, Queenscrown...to be decided) for a sizeable part of the Free Folk population that is loyal to Ygritte would end up with them in a similar arrangement as the Mountain Clans. Not really special treatment.

Peace will keep our nobles from being resentful. Besides any troublemakers that will be dealt with...this will keep their mothers and daughters from being taken by wildlings in the future. Because there won't be wildlings, there will only be First Men in the North.

But there will need to be reparations, which I'll get into.


Draft Plan 2:

On the law: Refuge from winter and Gendel's children means respecting the laws of the North. To guarantee this, their leaders must vow fealty to the Stark of Winterfell. The Free Folk will be expected to contribute to the fight against Gendel's children, the defense of the North in general so long as they are there, and assist with the remaining harvests. All will be necessary if we're going to help each other survive winter.
-Call it taxes, tribute, or 'trading some of our harvest now so that there's stuff to pay for roads, armies that protect us, and enough stores of grain to survive come winter'. Whatever you call it, this is Westeros and it's how we keep millions of people alive.
*Any Free Folk that moves to lands already ruled by a lord must respect the laws of the land they're in.
**In general: kidnapping, stealing, slavery, rape, murder, etc. Against the law. Those that behave like brigands will be treated as such. The cooperation of the leaders of the Free Folk in preventing this and stopping it if it does happen is expected, the same as from any other leader.

On Settlement:
*Ygritte will be offered the title of Lady Ygritte ____. She will be offered the (Stony Shore, Sea Dragon Point, Cape Kraken) for her people to settle. She will swear fealty directly to the Stark of Winterfell. Additional lesser titles and further assistance in settling these lands and developing them can be further negotiated as necessary.
---Ygritte knows the Free Folk. Are there any groups that would do better separately? Any that are more likely to cause trouble (with each other or any neighbor)? Those two aren't the same thing. Some that might chafe in the rest of the North might do better in Skagos. It practically rules itself, anyway. Or maybe somewhere else.
---Rebuilding Queenscrown and settling in the Gift is possible. That's still territory that belongs to the Watch, though. It would be a partnership with them to manage the land.
*The case could be made for the Children of the Forest to settle the God's Eye. Or the weirwood circles at Sea Dragon Point. Or Wolfswood near Winterfell.
*Giants can be offered to settle in the Wolfswood near Winterfell if they want their own place. Unless they have a preference?
*Free Folk, as any person in Westeros is, are not bound to the land and can leave in peace. If they ever wish to not live under oaths of fealty or the laws of any lord (for the ones that settle in lands under a lord's rule) they are free to go back beyond the Wall come spring, or try the Iron Islands or Essos for all we care. But while they're here they swear loyalty.
--While they can 'vote with their feet' and move elsewhere (so long as they respect the laws of where they go) as any can, it should be noted that lands the Free Folk raided regularly in the past probably wouldn't be a good idea for them, even for small groups.
*We can't make the promises, since allowing Free Folk further south would be Robb's call, but we could pitch the idea allowing those interested in doing so to settle elsewhere. Perhaps in the Riverlands, or to help rebuild King's Landing. it's completely different from their old life, but maybe that's what some are looking for.


Reparations:
*The land granted to the Free Folk (Stony Shore, Sea Dragon Point, Cape Kraken, Queenscrown) as recompense for being confined behind the Wall. Assistance in settling may be provided (to be negotiated as necessary).
*Those that had been abducted from their homes in the North must be allowed to return.
*reparations for those taken in the past and to end the enmity between the Free Folk and the people of the lands they raided (mainly Mormonts, Umbers, and Mountain Clans), to be agreed upon between both parties, with Starks arbitrating (just as they do in issues between lords). This may be weregild in goods t be paid over time. Alliances by marriage will be encouraged. Brides were taken and caused enmity, brides can be given (of their own will and NOT be mistreated) to end the enmity.


We need to make settling sound like a good deal to them, something that can long term. Settle the land, offer further assistance (that bit where I say it's up for further negotiation...it depends on what they need and how much, they may have to pay for it now or later).


As for which lands to offer them to settle, primarily...I'm not sure if the Stony Shore is run by the Fishers or if they don't exist anymore and the land isn't all that inhabited. @Charcolt ?
 
Last edited:
Lonely Hills

Umber lands.

Aren't smallfolk in Westeros allowed to go where they please? 'Vote with their feet', so to speak. They're not serfs.

Of course, once settled it would take some serious dissatisfaction to make them want to move.

Are you saying the Free Folk should be bound to the land, making them less free than smallfolk? That's not going to work.

And I already made clear that the terms of them being in the North are that if they're in a lord's land, they operate by their rules.


Oh, there will be issues for them adjusting to farming (though I think they'll quickly get used to being able to grow all this food, holy shit!). That's why I'm suggesting multiple options. Your plan has them spreading everywhere...but it's all the single option of effectively dissolving their clans/tribes/villages and spread out. Some might not be that attached, others will be. To make a solution that's more likely to keep as many as possible from acting out...we need to get as many of them comfortably settled as possible, which is going to require multiple options.

But Sea Dragon Point and the Stony Shore should be plenty of land for them, with room to move about if they want without having to wander onto their neighbors land and be subject to the lords there.


The part of my plan that has giving them a solid chunk of land (Stony Shore, Sea Dragon Point, Cape Kraken, Queenscrown...to be decided) for a sizeable part of the Free Folk population that is loyal to Ygritte would end up with them in a similar arrangement as the Mountain Clans. Not really special treatment.

Peace will keep our nobles from being resentful. Besides any troublemakers that will be dealt with...this will keep their mothers and daughters from being taken by wildlings in the future. Because there won't be wildlings, there will only be First Men in the North.

But there will need to be reparations, which I'll get into.


Draft Plan 2:

On the law: Refuge from winter and Gendel's children means respecting the laws of the North. To guarantee this, their leaders must vow fealty to the Stark of Winterfell. The Free Folk will be expected to contribute to the fight against Gendel's children, the defense of the North in general so long as they are there, and assist with the remaining harvests. All will be necessary if we're going to help each other survive winter.
-Call it taxes, tribute, or 'trading some of our harvest now so that there's stuff to pay for roads, armies that protect us, and enough stores of grain to survive come winter'. Whatever you call it, this is Westeros and it's how we keep millions of people alive.
*Any Free Folk that moves to lands already ruled by a lord must respect the laws of the land they're in.
**In general: kidnapping, stealing, slavery, rape, murder, etc.. Those that behave like brigands will be treated as such. The cooperation of the leaders of the Free Folk in preventing this and stopping it if it does happen is expected, the same as from any other leader.

On Settlement:
*Ygritte will be offered the title of Lady Ygritte ____. She will be offered the (Stony Shore, Sea Dragon Point, Cape Kraken) for her people to settle. She will swear fealty directly to the Stark of Winterfell. Assistance in settling these lands and developing them can be further negotiated.
---She knows the Free Folk. Are there any groups that would do better separately? Any that are more likely to cause trouble (with each other or any neighbor)? Those two aren't the same thing. Some that might chafe in the rest of the North might do better in Skagos. It practically rules itself, anyway.
---Rebuilding Queenscrown and settling in the Gift is possible. That's still territory that belongs to the Watch, though. It would be a partnership with them to manage the land.
*The case could be made for the Children of the Forest to settle the God's Eye. Or the weirwood circles at Sea Dragon Point. Or Wolfswood.
*Giants can be offered to settle in the Wolfswood if they want their own place. Unless they have a preference?
*Free Folk, as any person in Westeros is, are not bound to the land and can leave in peace. If they ever wish to not live under oaths of fealty or the laws of any lord (for the ones that settle in lands under a lord's rule) they are free to go back beyond the Wall come spring, or try the Iron Islands or Essos for all we care. But while they're here they swear loyalty.
--While they can 'vote with their feet' and move elsewhere (so long as they respect the laws of where they go) as any can, it should be noted that lands the Free Folk raided regularly in the past probably wouldn't be a good idea for them, even for small groups.
*We can't make the promises, since allowing Free Folk further south would be Robb's call, but we could pitch the idea allowing those interested in doing so to settle elsewhere. Perhaps in the Riverlands, or to help rebuild King's Landing. it's completely different from their old life, but maybe that's what some are looking for.


Reparations:
*The land granted to the Free Folk (Stony Shore, Sea Dragon Point, Cape Kraken, Queenscrown) as recompense for being confined behind the Wall. Assistance in settling may be provided (to be negotiated as necessary).
*Those that had been abducted from their homes in the North must be allowed to return.
*reparations for those taken in the past and to end the enmity between the Free Folk and the people of the lands they raided (mainly Mormonts, Umbers, and Mountain Clans), to be agreed upon between both parties, with Starks arbitrating (just as they do in issues between lords). This may be weregild in goods t be paid over time. Alliances by marriage will be encouraged. Brides were taken and caused enmity, brides can be given (of their own will and NOT be mistreated) to end the enmity.


We need to make settling sound like a good deal to them, something that can long term. Settle the land, offer further assistance (that bit where I say it's up for further negotiation...it depends on what they need and how much, they may have to pay for it now or later).


As for which lands to offer them to settle, primarily...I'm not sure if the Stony Shore is run by the Fishers or if they don't exist anymore and the land isn't all that inhabited. @Charcolt ?

I just assumed small folk in Westeros are not allowed to move about since the feudal structure was not explained so I default to general expectations of medieval life and the fact that Lord Goodbrook was unable to repopulate his burnt village 15 years after Robert's Rebellion. A burnt village would've offered extremely cheap rent rates for peasants across the Riverlands if they weren't serfs. A decade and a half of peace during a Long Summer should've seen to the quick revival of that village. If the more prosperous Riverlands has serfs than the North which needs its smallfolk to farm so everyone can survive the harsh Winters has to have serfdom as well. I would remove that "vote with their feet" part altogether, add in the Essos and Iron Islands options but overall your plan looks good.

The village was just where Notch had promised it would be. They took shelter in a grey stone stable. Only half a roof remained, but that was half a roof more than any other building in the village. It's not a village, it's only black stones and old bones. "Did the Lannisters kill the people who lived here?" Arya asked as she helped Anguy dry the horses.

"No." He pointed. "Look at how thick the moss grows on the stones. No one's moved them for a long time. And there's a tree growing out of the wall there, see? This place was put to the torch a long time ago."

"Who did it, then?" asked Gendry.

"Hoster Tully." Notch was a stooped thin grey-haired man, born in these parts. "This was Lord Goodbrook's village. When Riverrun declared for Robert, Goodbrook stayed loyal to the king, so Lord Tully came down on him with fire and sword. After the Trident, Goodbrook's son made his peace with Robert and Lord Hoster, but that didn't help the dead none."
 
Last edited:
I just assumed small folk in Westeros are not allowed to move about since the feudal structure was not explained so I default to general expectations of medieval life and the fact that Lord Goodbrook was unable to repopulate his burnt village 15 years after Robert's Rebellion. A burnt village would've offered extremely cheap rent rates for peasants across the Riverlands if they weren't serfs. A decade and a half of peace during a Long Summer should've seen to the quick revival of that village. If the more prosperous Riverlands has serfs than the North which needs its smallfolk to farm so everyone can survive the harsh Winters has to have serfdom as well. I would remove that "vote with their feet" part altogether, add in the Essos and Iron Islands options but overall your plan looks good.


That's a lot of assumptions from a single excerpt/occurrence, especially when there's more than one explanation.

If the village burnt, so did any buildings there. Maybe they couldn't afford to rebuild, or people weren't interested in putting the effort there.

Plus, if they were serfs, couldn't they be FORCED to repopulate abandoned lands? If the smallfolk are more free than serfs, though, they'd have to be given incentive to go somewhere. I think the latter's more likely and the above example is just a failure to do so.


What I know of ASOIAF and from discussion I've heard is that Westeros is more like 14th century Western Europe (Scotland, England, and France in particular) than the 9th or 10th centures. Peasants had more mobility by that point.


Smallfolk

This indicates some social mobility for the smallfolk. Though it doesn't address peasants in the country (much more social mobility and different classes in towns and cities). They probably don't have a lot going for them. I wouldn't be surprised if tenant farmers are regularly exploited. But all the mention of coin in Westeros indicates it's fairly common. If it's at least a somewhat monetary economy, then the lord provides protection and the peasants are more likely to pay rent in the form of cash or crop rather than owe their labor/be bound to the land.

Crofters' village

That shows the existence of crofters (tenant farmers) in the North, at least.


Though I wouldn't be surprised if there are also peasants that own their own land.


As for the Free Folk on the unoccupied land they settle on...they'll swear fealty and have 'lords/ladies' that are recognized (as with the Mountain Clans) as such in relation to other lords and the Starks, but so long as they pay their dues and respect the law how they do things is their business. They could be an anarcho-syndicalist commune for all I care. :V


All that said, Martin is vague on the status of smallfolk, probably intentionally so. So how it is in this quest is up to @Charcolt . I guess that's another question that could use answering. Official word on the matter wouldn't hurt.


Offering to ship them to Essos and the Iron Islands? Neither of them are our places to rule/send people to. I suppose Robb could send them to the Iron Islands....but as of a couple updates ago we don't know what's going on over there. That's why we're sending a force there. I don't think it's a good time to ship refugees there.

I really doubt any of them want to shipped off to Essos and left on those shores, ready to be taken by slavers. What are they going to do, join a sell-sword company?
 
Last edited:
That's a lot of assumptions from a single excerpt/occurrence, especially when there's more than one explanation.

If the village burnt, so did any buildings there. Maybe they couldn't afford to rebuild, or people weren't interested in putting the effort there.

Plus, if they were serfs, couldn't they be FORCED to repopulate abandoned lands? If the smallfolk are more free than serfs, though, they'd have to be given incentive to go somewhere. I think the latter's more likely and the above example is just a failure to do so.


What I know of ASOIAF and from discussion I've heard is that Westeros is more like 14th century Western Europe (Scotland, England, and France in particular) than the 9th or 10th centures. Peasants had more mobility by that point.


Smallfolk

This indicates some social mobility for the smallfolk. Though it doesn't address peasants in the country (much more social mobility and different classes in towns and cities). They probably don't have a lot going for them. I wouldn't be surprised if tenant farmers are regularly exploited. But all the mention of coin in Westeros indicates it's fairly common. If it's at least a somewhat monetary economy, then the lord provides protection and the peasants are more likely to pay rent in the form of cash or crop rather than owe their labor/be bound to the land.

Crofters' village

That shows the existence of crofters (tenant farmers) in the North, at least.


Though I wouldn't be surprised if there are also peasants that own their own land.


As for the Free Folk on the unoccupied land they settle on...they'll swear fealty and have 'lords/ladies' that are recognized (as with the Mountain Clans) as such in relation to other lords and the Starks, but so long as they pay their dues and respect the law how they do things is their business. They could be an anarcho-syndicalist commune for all I care. :V


All that said, Martin is vague on the status of smallfolk, probably intentionally so. So how it is in this quest is up to @Charcolt . I guess that's another question that could use answering. Official word on the matter wouldn't hurt.


Offering to ship them to Essos and the Iron Islands? Neither of them are our places to rule/send people to. I suppose Robb could send them to the Iron Islands....but as of a couple updates ago we don't know what's going on over there. That's why we're sending a force there. I don't think it's a good time to ship refugees there.

I really doubt any of them want to shipped off to Essos and left on those shores, ready to be taken by slavers. What are they going to do, join a sell-sword company?
The link you gave specifically states lords hold a great deal of power over their small folk. I never said free peasants never existed but that if you want wildlings to swear to a local lord than you can not give them that privilege since the other bound small folk do not have those rights as well. Free peasants and serfs are not mutually exclusive and have existed side by side during the High Middle Ages. On one hand the scarcity of labour gives the peasants bargaining power but the fact that the North is so large and with such harsh weather means peasants probably aren't capable of organizing into large groups to fight for their rights and miss enough farming days to not starve before the nobles with their massive granaries and walls outlast them. Serfdom was abolished in Western Europe through disease, resistance and economic incentives favouring free peasant labour which thanks to multi-year long winters, Westeros and the North lack. The fact that Martin includes the Rite of the First Night aka Prima Nocits which was Renaissance propaganda in his works means he has more of a stereotypical view of Medieval life and he has stated the North undergoes a mass famine each winter, which is not conductive to peasant rights.
 
Last edited:
The link you gave specifically states lords hold a great deal of power over their small folk. I never said free peasants never existed but that if you want wildlings to swear to a local lord than you can not give them that privilege since the other bound small folk do not have those rights as well. Free peasants and serfs are not mutually exclusive and have existed side by side during the High Middle Ages. On one hand the scarcity of labour gives the peasants bargaining power but the fact that the North is so large and with such harsh weather means peasants probably aren't capable of organizing into large groups to fight for their rights and miss enough farming days to not starve before the nobles with their massive granaries and walls outlast them. Serfdom was abolished in Western Europe through disease, resistance and economic incentives favouring free peasant labour which thanks to multi-year long winters, Westeros and the North lack. The fact that Martin includes the Rite of the First Night aka Prima Nocits which was Renaissance propaganda in his works means he has more of a stereotypical view of Medieval life and he has stated the North undergoes a mass famine each winter, which is not conductive to peasant rights.

Well yeah, the lords having a lot of power over peasants is the norm, but that does not equal serfdom necessarily.


As for swearing to the local lord...that's for any of the Free Folk that want to settle in lands already inhabited and with lords already there. I'm not saying they make themselves serfs, just respect the local lord and laws. I'll probably just tweak it to 'respect the local authority/laws'. Keep it general and vague.

I'll do that as part of making an actual plan once I get a few of those answers for questions in previous posts.

But are you saying the Free Folk can't be allowed to move to a different territory (as other peasants may well be able to do...) because 'some' of the peasants in the territory they move to might be serfs?

By that logic, all peasants that aren't serfs wouldn't be allowed to move at all, lest they make any serfs in the places they go to jealous. Which is ridiculous.


This is probably mostly moot, anyway. I doubt a lot of Free Folk would move from a territory where the lord/lady is one of their own to a kneeler territory, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Summary of this discussion: "Placement of massive immigrant influx is hard"

Do we have any concerns beyond that part of the issue?
 
Summary of this discussion: "Placement of massive immigrant influx is hard"

Do we have any concerns beyond that part of the issue?

I don't think so. And I think part of that hinges on whether any peasants have freedom of mobility at all. I'm inclined to think they do, at least some of them if not the majority.

If that's the case, that should be how the Free Folk are considered by default.

I could make my plan now based on that, but I'll wait for confirmation if it settles any concerns over it.


I doubt the vast majority of Free Folk would move away from wherever they initially settle, though. Once they're settled moving takes effort, and winter isn't far away. Those that do would be a trickle.
 
The Fishers are extinct and the Shore is ruled directly by the Starks in modern times, though it's basically empty barring a few Ironborn-descended villages, given all the reaving. You can send them somewhere with Robb's permission; I'm certainly not going to stop crazy plans and the Ironborn are up to shit so a fleet of asshole refugees might be fun.
 
Okay. So the Stony Shore is viable. It's ceding direct control of Stark territory...but it's not like it was being used. It would need development to stand up to reaving, but the western shore could use development.

Decisions, decisions...

I'm seriously tempted to just ship the lot of them to the Iron Islands.

And we know the Iron Fleet is away and the Ironborn are up to something, but we don't know what exactly or the situation on the islands themselves. We won't know until we hear word of what that group we sent there finds out.

We could put them at the Stony Shore for the short term, then find out if the Iron Islands need to be purged and/or could use an influx of asshole refugees.' Or just send the refugees there...maybe they'll arrive at about the same time the fleet/army is. "Oh look, we have a bunch of wildlings that are happy to slaughter the lot of you and take your land if you step out of line." The Free Folk have no love of the Ironborn since they've been subject to reaving in the past.

Seems a bit meta though, since I'm not sure Ned and Jon know about the Ironborn being up to something or a fleet being sent there.

And the matter of peasant mobility? Serfs might be a thing (though with the Faiths' stance on slavery...serfdom seems uncomfortably close), but if there are serfs are they the minority compared to peasants that are free to move around?



Anyway...I could keep most of my above plan, but we could offer settling the Iron Islands as one of multiple options in the 'settlement' part.

1. Iron Islands-pros: you'll live the way you want. So long as you don't reave/raid/etc. We had enough of that shit from the Ironborn, and do you REALLY want to emulate them?

2. Stony Shore. You'll need to swear fealty, or at least loyalty by heart tree, any other gods you have. If you want help developing, you'll need to contribute with taxes/tribute, as other lords and the Mountain Clans do.

3. Settle the Old Gift. That will involve helping the Watch quite a bit. They'll need assistance surviving the winter, but northern lords get the New Gift.
 
Back
Top